DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, lines 8-11, filed 7/10/2026, with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 7/10/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant has canceled claim 6 and has amended claim 1 to incorporate the features of canceled claim 6. Applicant has proffered no substantive arguments against the rejections of record for original claim 1 and original claim 6. Therefore, amended claim 1 stands finally rejected over the references of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Nakata (US 20080276788 A1, November 3, 2009), hereinafter Nakata.
Regarding claim 1, Nakata discloses a keyboard instrument stand comprising: a leg portion configured to support a keyboard instrument (Nakata fig. 5 below: leg portions 72 and 74); a horizontal spanning member disposed underneath a lower surface of the keyboard instrument and extending in a key alignment direction (Nakata ¶0021: "A bar member 78 is fastened to the lower stand portions 74 of the both sides, so that the lower stand portions of the both sides are made to have a certain interval."); plural connectors each of which is disposed at a respective one of two ends of the horizontal spanning member (Nakata ¶0021: "A bar member 78 is fastened to the lower stand portions 74 of the both sides, so that the lower stand portions of the both sides are made to have a certain interval." Fastening inherently discloses connectors between bar member 78 and lower stand legs 74.); a pedal device (Nakata ¶0041: "the second embodiment and the modified example of the first and third embodiments are provided with the plurality of pedals 62"); and a pedal frame configured to fix the pedal device (Nakata ¶0024: "a pedal unit 80 is fastened to the bar member 78." Pedal unit 80 and bar member 78 comprise a pedal frame.), wherein each connector comprises a pedal frame fixing portion configured to fix the pedal frame and a leg fixing portion configured to fix the leg portion (Plural connectors (fasteners) fixes the pedal frame (comprising pedal unit 80 and bar member 78) to the lower leg portions 74 of both sides. Each connector (fastener) therefore inherently comprises a pedal frame fixing portion and a leg fixing portion.), and wherein at least a part of the pedal device is disposed further backwards than a backmost end portion in a front-back direction of the keyboard instrument (Nakata ¶0027: "the position of the pedal unit 80 is moved away in the backward direction with respect to the position of the main body 10 (the keyboard 12 in particular)." See the arrangement disclosed in Nakata Fig. 5 below.).
PNG
media_image1.png
649
563
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Nakata discloses a keyboard instrument stand comprising the features of claim 6 as discussed above.
Nakata further discloses that an upper end portion of the pedal frame is fixed to each connector on a back side thereof as viewed from a player's side (Nakata ¶0021: "A bar member 78 is fastened to the lower stand portions 74 of the both sides, so that the lower stand portions of the both sides are made to have a certain interval." Nakata fig. 5 above discloses an upper end portion of pedal frame 78 fixed on the back side of the connector (fastener); lower leg portion 74 is fixed on the front side of the connector (fastener).).
Regarding claim 8, Nakata discloses a keyboard instrument stand comprising the features of claim 1 as discussed above.
Nakata further discloses a keyboard instrument (Nakata ¶0008: "an electronic musical instrument according to the present invention includes a main body having a keyboard operated with player's hands; a lower stand portion being placed on a floor; an upper stand portion supporting the main body at an upper portion of the upper stand portion").
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Nakata in view of Kuwabara (JPH 11202858 A, July 30, 1999), hereinafter Kuwabara.
Regarding claim 2, Nakata discloses a keyboard instrument stand comprising the features of claim 1 as discussed above.
Nakata further teaches that an upper end of the pedal frame is disposed further toward a back side than an upper end of the leg portion (Nakata ¶0027: "the position of the pedal unit 80 is moved away in the backward direction with respect to the position of the main body 10 (the keyboard 12 in particular)." See the arrangement disclosed in Nakata Fig. 5 above.).
Nakata does not explicitly disclose that the leg portion is disposed in such a manner as to extend outwards of the keyboard instrument as viewed along both the front-back direction and a left-right direction.
However, Kuwabara teaches that the leg portion is disposed in such a manner as to extend outwards of the keyboard instrument as viewed along both the front-back direction and a left-right direction (Kuwabara ¶0006: "the present invention comprises at least three legs and a leg support frame to which these legs are attached, and the leg support frame holds each leg at an incline so that the spacing between each leg narrows upward, and each leg can be changed in position along the inclined direction." See Kuwabara fig. 1 below for a drawing of legs expanding outward in the front-back and left-right directions.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the keyboard instrument stand of Nakata by adding the outward expanding legs of Kuwabara to adjust the width of the stand to suit instruments of different widths (Kuwabara ¶0007).
PNG
media_image2.png
904
960
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Nakata in view of Terui (WO 2019043944 A1, March 7, 2019), hereinafter Terui.
Regarding claim 3, Nakata discloses a keyboard instrument stand comprising the features of claim 1 as discussed above.
Nakata does not explicitly disclose that the leg portion comprises two back legs provided on a back side, and wherein the pedal device and the pedal frame are disposed further toward a front side than a line which connects backmost end portions of the two back legs.
However, Terui suggests that the leg portion comprises two back legs provided on a back side (Terui fig. 1 below, ref. nos. 132a and 132b), and wherein the pedal device and the pedal frame are disposed further toward a front side than a line which connects backmost end portions of the two back legs (Terui fig. 1 below, ref. nos. 106a, 106b, 104, and 116, and attached to cross piece ref. no. 134, are disposed further toward a front side than a line which connects the backmost end portions of legs 132a and 132b.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the keyboard instrument stand of Nakata by adding the front-forward disposition of the pedals of Terui to permit the user to operate the pedals without any discomfort (Terui ¶0020).
PNG
media_image3.png
837
917
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Nakata discloses a keyboard instrument stand comprising the features of claim 8 as discussed above.
Nakata does not explicitly disclose a data communication portion for communication with external equipment is provided at a central portion on a back surface of the keyboard instrument, and wherein the data communication portion is disposed inside the pedal frame in a case where the keyboard instrument and the keyboard instrument stand are fixed to each other.
However, Terui teaches a data communication portion for communication with external equipment is provided at a central portion of the keyboard instrument (Terui ¶0033: "the pedal device 100 is electrically connected to the keyboard instrument 142 via a cable 118." See ref. no. 118 in Terui fig. 1 above.), and wherein the data communication portion is disposed inside the pedal frame in a case where the keyboard instrument and the keyboard instrument stand are fixed to each other (Terui ¶0033: "the pedal device 100 is electrically connected to the keyboard instrument 142 via a cable 118." Terui fig. 1 above suggests the pedal end of cable 118 being disposed inside pedal frame 104.).
Terui does not explicitly disclose that the data communication portion on a back surface of the keyboard instrument. However, locating the data communication portion on the back surface of the keyboard instrument would not modify the operation of the device, and therefore represents an unpatentable design choice involving rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the keyboard instrument stand of Nakata by adding the data communication portion of Terui to electrically connect the pedal to change the decay behavior, tone, and volume of the sound (Terui ¶0002).
Regarding claim 10, Nakata discloses a keyboard instrument stand comprising the features of claim 1 as discussed above.
Nakata does not explicitly disclose that the pedal frame is made of a metal material, and the leg is made of a wood member.
However, Terui teaches that the pedal frame is made of a metal material (Terui ¶0021: "The support 106 includes a metal such as iron or aluminum, or an alloy such as stainless steel.").
Examiner takes official notice that keyboard instrument legs are commonly made of wood members.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the keyboard instrument stand of Nakata by adding the metal pedal frame of Terui and instrument legs comprising wooden members as this represents applying a standard, known technique to improve a device.
Regarding claim 11, Nakata discloses a keyboard instrument stand comprising the features of claim 1 as discussed above.
Nakata does not explicitly disclose that the horizontal spanning member is disposed at an upper end of the leg portion.
However, Terui teaches that the horizontal spanning member is disposed at an upper end of the leg portion (See horizontal spanning member 134 in Terui fig. 1 above.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the keyboard instrument stand of Nakata by adding the horizontal spanning member of Terui to provide mechanical strength to the stand (Terui ¶0132).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Nakata in view of Wang (CN 110619861 A, December 27, 2019), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 5, Nakata discloses a keyboard instrument stand comprising the features of claim 1 as discussed above.
Nakata does not explicitly disclose that the pedal frame comprises two rod members which extend from left and right side portions of the pedal device towards an upper side in such a manner as to define an inverted trapezoidal shape therebetween as viewed from a front side.
However, Wang suggests that the pedal frame comprises two rod members which extend from left and right side portions of the pedal device towards an upper side in such a manner as to define an inverted trapezoidal shape therebetween as viewed from a front side (Wang ¶0089: "a secondary support is also included, which includes at least one secondary support rod 22, the two ends of which are movably connected to the upper crossbar 101 and the lower crossbar 201, respectively." Wang fig. 2 below discloses support rods 22 arranged in a trapezoidal shape, connecting to lower crossbar 201, which comprises a similar position and function to Nakada's pedal frame.).
Wang does not explicitly disclose an inverted trapezoidal shape. However, inverting Wang's trapezoidal shape would not modify the operation of the device, and therefore represents an unpatentable design choice involving rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Besides, it is well-known in the art that grand piano pedal backstay rods commonly define an inverted trapezoidal shape, for example the Bosendorfer 290 Imperial Concert Grand.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the keyboard instrument stand of Nakata by adding the rod members of Wang to provide auxiliary support (Wang ¶0089).
PNG
media_image4.png
657
1097
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP SCOLES whose telephone number is (703)756-1831. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-4:30 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dedei Hammond can be reached on 571-270-7938. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHILIP G SCOLES/
Examiner, Art Unit 2837
/DEDEI K HAMMOND/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights